You need to be a member of THE GREAT AWAKENING to add comments!

My name is Jeff Blackmon, I am an avid Tea Party member who is not active with any particular group but have always been an activist when it comes to supporting the right candidates.

I'm contacting you today because Rahm Emmanuel has pissed me off with his recent endorsement of Tammy Duckworth. There is no doubt that the Obama Administration and their Chicago Machine intend to attack Joe Walsh and I want to help re-elect the candidate who has stood on principle to try to bring our country back to its roots.

We Tea Party members need to collect information and craft the message that will go after Duckworth and Obama's liberal, socialist agenda and one that helps win the race for Joe Walsh. But I need your help.

I need for you to help by being my eyes and ears and by relaying information on Tammy Duckworth or Raja. It's real simple:

If you receive a piece of mail, a phone call, see walkers in your neighborhood, or have a neighbor put up a yard sign for Raja and Tammy or any other organization about the 8th Congressional race, please contact me below and include some information.

Voter Registeration ends on 2-21-12 for the primary election. If you have changed your address or have not registered to vote please do so by 2-21-12. Call my self or Carol Ann we will be glad to assist you.

In FY2011, Illinois faces a $12 BILLION dollar structural budget deficit. More than half of that – $7 BILLION – is related to generous pension and retiree health care programs for government workers that the State simply cannot afford. These generous programs will have racked up more than $140 BILLION in debt and unfunded liabilities by the end of FY2011.

In order to keep the pension funds from running out of money, the State will have to make massive contributions into the funds in future years. By 2020, these contributions will consume around 30% of the state’s “Big Three” tax revenues – from corporate and personal income taxes, and from sales taxes. By 2045, pension payments will eat up close to 50% of these revenues – crowding out dollars for education, public safety, health care for the poor, and other critical social services. Contact your lawmaker NOW and demand Reforms!

Illinois’ fiscal problems and the fact that we have no real plan for dealing with them have made our state one of the least attractive places for doing business. A recent survey of CEO’s placed Illinois at the bottom of the heap in terms of our attractiveness to business; and many of the other states at the bottom have already begun to take steps to address their fiscal problems.

Generous pension benefits that the State cannot afford are at the root of this problem. While the state took a step in the right direction last year by reforming benefits for NEW government workers, CURRENT government workers continue to participate in the State’s traditional and costly plans.

They can retire at age 55 or 60, and receive generous cost-of-living adjustments each year. These lifetime benefits can be worth more than $1 MILLION or more for a full-career employee who retires at 55 or 60. They are completely out-of-line with the benefits offered to taxpayers working in the private sector.

Yet the 95% of Illinois taxpayers who do not receive such generous benefits will pay higher taxes to pay for the 5% of state residents who do.

Many of the politicians are playing games, and it doesn't matter what letter comes after their names. We are sinking into a pit and they are acting as though cutting $84 billion dollars from TRILLIONS is almost too much. The GOP leadership is still undercutting the Pledge, which clearly stated that they would cut $100 billion from non-security spending. Below is an email from the Republican Study Committee and their efforts to introduce an amendment that would bring the total cut in non-security spending to $100 billion. Please read through it and make your calls. THE VOTE MAY COME AS EARLY AS TONIGHT!

In other news, Steve King's amendment failed to gain the protection it needed in the Rules Committee from a point of order being raised on the floor during debate. Even the Reps. that told us they would vote to protect King's amendment voted against it. They told us they would protect it and asked that we ask our members to stop calling, so we did. And they turned around and did the opposite. We will have a list shortly with the names of those who betrayed us and the commitment to fully defund Obamacare.

SB 136 is anunwarranted expansion of government into the private lives and affairs of good Illinois citizens.

As you know, SB 136 has been proposed in the Illinois General Assembly by State Senator Edward D. Maloney (D-Chicago). This bill will affect all children in non-public schools, including home schools. If SB 136 were to pass, it would compel all parents or legal guardians of home or privately schooled students to register with the state. Registration that is now voluntary would become mandatory.

Senator Maloney may move to amend SB 136, removing the reference to "private schools" and only require "home school" parents to register their children with the local Regional Office of Education instead of the State Board of Education. This would make the bill even more problematic. Public school administrators and bureaucrats should have NO jurisdiction over homeschooling families.

TAKE ACTION: If you have not yet called the members of the Senate Education Committee -- please do so now. Ask them to oppose this bill and encourage Sen. Maloney to table it. You can also click HERE to send Sen. Maloney and each of the committee members a fax or an email. (You may want to do both!)

Thank you all for the updates from legislators, Quinn's office, etc. People in Illinois are outraged!! The only way to stop these tax increases, at this point, is to target Democratic Suburban State Representatives with nonstop emails and calls, many of whom are concerned about their re-election in 2012.

It’s no secret that the state of Illinois is in a fiscal crisis. It’s taken about ten years of pay-to play politics, sweetheart deals, poor public policy decisions, and the complete mismanagement of state funds to get us to this point.

Illinois' budget deficit is approximately $14 billion, the state’s pension and retiree health care debt is approximately $130 billion, unfunded Medicaid liability has doubled since 2007 and Illinois’ unemployment rate has hovered around 10% for the last two years. Yet, state government continues to spend more than it takes in (an average of $3 for every $2 it receives from our tax dollars).

This week (January 4-11, 2011), the Illinois General Assembly is convening for a lame duck session. There are several scenarios being discussed behind closed doors on whether lawmakers will be asked to vote on revenue enhancements (I.E. tax increases) during the lame duck session.

We certainly won’t be given advanced noticed as to how or if this is going to occur. What we do know is that as a matter of principle, it would be a slap in the face to voters if lawmakers were to approve a tax increase or complicated reform packages during an 8 day lame duck session. Especially, when so many lawmakers are on their way out of office and won't be held accountable to voters for their votes.

Comment by carol ann parisi just now Delete Comment **MUST CALL! VOTE TODAY!**
On Dec. 8 the Senate will take up the DREAM Act (S3992) as well as the Forced Unionization bill, deceptively named the Public Employee Cooperation Act (S3991). Below are the action items with links to information and target senator information.

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien "kids." Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act's requirements-not just children-could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act-hardly the "kids" the Act's advocates keep talking about.

The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.

2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application

Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing "any alien who has a pending application for conditional status" under the DREAM Act-regardless of age or criminal record-providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens' removal from the United States. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.

3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act

Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.

4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply

Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately 2.1 million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 2.1 million due to fraud and our inherent inability to accurately

Click on one of the following links to read the articles:
Congress Should Oppose Labor Union Power Grab Legislation
Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill
Gov. Bob McDonnell: U.S. Senate should leave labor policy to the states

This bill would unconstitutionally abrogate all states’ sovereignty, subject state and local public-safety workers to compulsory union “representation,” eliminate local government control over the labor relations of their own workers, lead to a rise in labor strife, and further damage fragile state and local government economies by imposing unfunded federal mandates. The House approved the bill in 2007 with the support of 98 Republicans.
ACTION: Congress should reject the so-called “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act” because the bill unconstitutionally abrogates each state’s existing right to determine the labor relations of its own and its local governments’ employees. And Congress should do so whether it is considered as a stand alone bill or as an amendment to another piece of legislation.

ISSUE-IN-BRIEF:
The bill claims to be designed to foster public-safety employer-employee cooperation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, the bill’s sole aim is to grant union officials monopoly collective-bargaining control over all state and local public-safety workers, including police, firefighters and emergency medical service personnel who refuse to join, or who quit, a union and want to deal with their employer on an individual basis. In short, this bill would deny public-safety workers freedom of contract.

•The bill is important to the Big Labor bosses because increasing membership in public-sector unions is a top priority. Last year—for the first time in history—public sector union membership surpassed that of private sector unions.

•The bill would not foster public-safety employer-employee cooperation, because union bargaining is inherently confrontational, not cooperative. This bill itself recognizes that fact by purporting to prohibit strikes. That prohibition means little. History shows that when unions are granted monopoly bargaining privileges in the public sector, strikes occur whether legal or not.

•Most important, this bill abrogates each state’s existing and sovereign right to order the labor relations of its own and its local governments’ employees in accordance with its elected officials’ judgment as to that state’s public interests. Today, each state is free to ban collective bargaining for its public-safety workers. The United States Supreme Court recognized that right in 1979 in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees. A few states have done so.

•Many states have granted public employees only limited collective-bargaining privileges, or only meet-and-confer privileges that do not require binding union contracts, or have not authorized bargaining for all types of public-safety workers. In no state does any federal agency play any part in ordering labor relations for state and local government employees.

•Thus, to avoid having an unelected federal agency regulate and oversee their public-safety employees’ labor relations, some 26 states would either have to enact entire new labor relations schemes that comply with federal mandates or amend